Admission of Barrister James Peter Chandler (陳德立大律師) Opposed by the Bar Association in the 1990s

HCMP 3721 / 1990 - IN THE MATTER of an application for admission as a barrister by JAMES PETER CHANDLER

Coram: Hon. Sir Derek Cons, Ag. C.J. in Court
Date of delivery of judgment: 19 July 1991

Sir Derek Cons, Ag. C.J.:

This is an application by way of notice of originating motion by James Peter Chandler for admission as a barrister of the Supreme Court under s. 27A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159. The section embodies a recent amendment providing for the admission, in appropriate circumstances, of practitioners qualified in other jurisdictions.... The application is... opposed by the Committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association, which has a right to be heard on the question by virtue of s. 33 of the Ordinance. The position taken by the Committee is supported by the Attorney General.

Mr. Chandler was born in England in 1944, taken to New Zealand at the age of seven when his father emigrated with the rest of his family to Wellington. Educated in Wellington at Onslow College and Victoria University, he qualified and was duly enrolled as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in 1967, and then as a barrister in 1968. Following four years as a commissioned officer in the New Zealand Army Legal Services he was employed with a private firm in Tauranga for two years before accepting an offer to come as crown counsel to Hong Kong. Working for the same firm in Tauranga was a certain Warwick Reid, who also subsequently came to Hong Kong as crown counsel. Mr. Chandler, Mr. Reid and their respective families became and remained thereafter firm friends.

Mr. Chandler was successful in his new career in Hong Kong. After only two years he was promoted to senior crown counsel, then assistant principal, deputy principal and finally principal crown counsel in October of 1987. During the course of his career he received one "admonishment" and one "reprimand", for social indiscretions not connected with official duties and which would be long forgotten had it not been for the present proceedings. At the same time his work has been once commended by a judge of this court and four times by members of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In February last year he was holding the office of deputy crown prosecutor...

The opposition to his admission rests upon a flaw of character revealed by his conduct early last year. He was on leave in Thailand, returning to give evidence for the defence in what at the time was a notorious criminal proceeding. It had been agreed with Government that he could return to Thailand to continue his leave when his evidence had been completed. Unfortunately, due to a combination of circumstances and in particular very heavy rainfall, he was unable to catch the Saturday flight to Thailand as he had arranged and decided instead to spend the weekend in Manila, returning to Hong Kong on the Monday to continue his original flight. That Saturday night in Manila, and by absolute chance, he met Warwick Reid in a city nightclub. Mr. Reid was then a wanted man in Hong Kong, having absconded while on bail granted by the Independent Commission Against Commission following his arrest upon suspicion of offences of corruption. In Hong Kong at that time his whereabouts were generally thought to be unknown. Yet Mr. Chandler made no effort to acquaint the authorities here with the fact of his presence in Manila, despite the obvious opportunities of the telephone and his meeting with another crown counsel during his transit through Kai Tak the following morning.

Mr. Anthony Neoh, who appears for the Bar Committee, emphasizes that Mr. Chandler must have been well aware from his knowledge of the relevant legislation that there was reasonable suspicion that Mr. Reid was indeed guilty of corruption, that his flight to Manila indicated an intention to evade prosecution if possible, that inevitably there was a warrant out for his arrest, and that should his return to Hong Kong be ever achieved there was a real probability of his prosecution. To those factors I would add the loudly voiced public concern that Mr. Reid had apparently managed to escape successfully from this jurisdiction.

The upshot of the non-disclosure, and I quote from a letter written by the Attorney General on the 23rd of March, was that:

"On 5 December 1990 Mr Chandler's service (with the Crown) was brought to a premature end. That was achieved by way of mutual resolution of his contract."

Mr. Chandler had been interdicted from his duties since the 30th of August. The Attorney General further explained:

"My Law Officers and I took the view that in failing promptly to report his meeting with Warwick Reid ... Mr Chandler had fallen short of the proper professional standards which are expected of lawyers in the service of the Crown; and that his continued employment in my Chambers was unacceptable."

(Source: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=26029&QS=%28%7BJAMES+PETER+CHANDLER%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU)